Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 907 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. This rule 

establishes a security zone. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Vessels, Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–120 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–120 Security Zone; Potomac 

and Anacostia Rivers, Washington, DC and 

Arlington and Fairfax Counties, VA. 

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section, Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland 

and any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Commander, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland 

to act as a designated representative on 

his behalf. 

(b) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: All waters of the Potomac 

River, from shoreline to shoreline, 

bounded by the Woodrow Wilson 

Memorial Bridge upstream to the Key 

Bridge, and all waters of the Anacostia 

River, from shoreline to shoreline, 

downstream from the Highway 50 

Bridge to the confluence with the 

Potomac River, including the waters of 

the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing security zones 

found in § 165.33 apply to the security 

zone described in paragraph (b) of this 

temporary section. 

(2) Entry into or remaining in this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his 

designated representative. Except for 

Public vessels and vessels at berth, 

mooring or at anchor, all vessels in this 

zone are to depart the security zone. 

(3) Persons desiring to transit the area 

of the security zone must first obtain 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. To seek permission to 

transit the area, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore can be contacted at telephone 

number (410) 576–2693. The Coast 

Guard vessels enforcing this section can 

be contacted on Marine Band Radio, 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon 

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard 

vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or 

other means, the operator of a vessel 

shall proceed as directed. If permission 

is granted, all persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Baltimore and 

proceed at the minimum speed 

necessary to maintain a safe course 

while within the zone. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone by Federal, 

State, and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 8 a.m. on January 

23, 2007, through 8 a.m. on January 24, 

2007. 

Dated: December 18, 2006. 

Brian D. Kelley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. E7–58 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP SAVANNAH 06–160] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone, Elba Island LNG 

mooring Slip, Savannah River, 

Savannah, GA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a permanent security zone 

due to changes in Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) tankship mooring arrangements 

following the activation of two new 

berths within a slip at the Southern LNG 

Facility on the Savannah River. The 

security zone includes all the waters 

from surface to bottom of the 

northeastern most mooring dolphin to 

the southeastern most mooring dolphin 

and continues west along the North and 

South shoreline of the mooring slip to 

the shoreline of the right descending 

bank of the Savannah River. This 

regulation is necessary to protect life 

and property on the navigable waters of 

the Savannah River and within the LNG 

slip due to potential security risks 

associated with the LNG Facility. 

DATES: This interim rule is effective 

January 9, 2007. Comments and related 

material must reach the Coast Guard on 

or before March 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket [COTP 

Savannah 06–160], will become part of 

this docket and will be available for 

inspection or copying at Marine Safety 

Unit Savannah, Juliette Gordon Low 

Federal Building, Suite 1017, 100 W. 

Oglethorpe, Savannah, Georgia 31401, 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Robert Webb, Waterways 

Management Officer, Marine Safety Unit 

Savannah; (912) 652–4353. 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES

908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM. To protect 

the LNG slip from potential sabotage 

and unauthorized access prior to a LNG 

ship arrival, we are publishing this 

interim rule with request for comments 

that will become effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Additionally, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

the Coast Guard finds that good cause 

exists for making this interim rule 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. Delaying 

implementation of this rule any longer 

to await public notice and comment 

would be contrary to the public interest 

because of the adverse effect on the 

safety of navigation in the Savannah 

River, vessel congestion, and the safety 

and security of LNG transfer operations 

in the port. 

Even though, we did not publish an 

NPRM, we still encourage you to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting comments and related 

material to the docket. We will accept 

comments for 60 days, after which we 

intend to publish the final rule. If you 

submit comments, please include your 

name and address, identify the docket 

number for this rulemaking [COTP 

Savannah 06–160], indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and give the reason 

for each comment. Please submit all 

comments and related material in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying. If you 

would like to know they reached us, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. We may 

change this interim rule in view of 

them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not plan to hold a public 

meeting on the interim rule. But you 

may submit a request for a meeting by 

writing to MSU Savannah (see 

ADDRESSES above) explaining why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at the time and place 

announced by a later notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

In May of 2002, Southern LNG, Inc., 

submitted a letter of intent to expand 

the LNG facility on Elba Island that 

would nearly double the LNG storage 

capacity and substantially increase the 

number of LNG tankship arrivals. The 

expansion project, completed in early 

2006, resulted in the creation of two 

new berths within a slip at the Southern 

LNG Facility on the Savannah River. 

The design of the new slip inadvertently 

creates a safe refuge off the Savannah 

River with unrestricted access to LNG 

berths. As a result, the LNG facility and 

arriving LNG vessels are put at risk of 

sabotage or other adverse action that 

could result in significant damage to 

property and loss of life. 

This concern was confirmed by an 

incident on June 6, 2006, when a sailing 

vessel entered the LNG slip and 

anchored for six hours, one day before 

the scheduled arrival of an LNG carrier. 

This incident raised security concerns 

and prompted the LNG facility to 

conduct a visual inspection of the above 

water mooring features and a complete 

underwater survey, in turn delaying the 

LNG vessel. The visual inspection and 

underwater survey was necessary to 

ensure no objects that could potentially 

harm the vessel or facility were left in 

the slip. Although the incident did not 

result in any harm to the facility or 

vessel, it was recognized by the Coast 

Guard that a potential vulnerability 

exists in the security of the LNG slip. 

Additionally, as the demand for 

natural gas continues to grow, Southern 

LNG plans to expand its current 

operation, potentially increasing both 

the size and frequency of LNG vessel 

arrivals and further concerns over a 

potential accidental spill or intentional 

release of LNG. The risks and hazards 

from an LNG spill will vary depending 

on the size of the spill, environmental 

conditions, and the site at which the 

spill occurs. Hazards can include 

cryogenic burns to the ship’s crew and 

people nearby or potential damage to 

the LNG ship from contact with the 

cryogenic LNG. Vaporization of the 

liquid LNG can occur once a spill 

occurs and subsequent ignition of the 

vapor cloud could cause fires and 

overpressures that could injure people 

or cause damage to the tanker’s 

structure, other LNG tanks, or nearby 

structures. 

Therefore, the incident of June 6, 

2006, discussed above, the hazards 

associated with the transportation of 

LNG, and the expansion of Elba Island 

LNG facility necessitate making this 

interim rule effective upon publication 

with a 60-day request for comment 

period. Additionally, this security zone 

is necessary to protect the berths and 

moored LNG vessels within the LNG 

slip from potential sabotage and 

unauthorized access prior to an LNG 

ship arrival. 

Discussion of Interim Rule 

The Security Zone encompasses the 

following area: All the waters from 

surface to bottom of the northeastern 

most mooring dolphin located at 

approximately 32[deg] 05.01’ North, 

080[deg] 59.38’ West, to the 

southeastern most mooring dolphin 

located at approximately 32[deg] 04.49’

North, 080[deg] 59.20’ West, and 

continues west along the North and 

South shoreline of the mooring slip to 

the shoreline of the right descending 

bank of the Savannah River. All marine 

traffic is prohibited from entering this 

zone unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port (COTP). 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. It is not significant under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. These regulations will 

have minimal impact on recreational 

and commercial vessels and is necessary 

to protect the berths and moored LNG 

vessels within the LNG slip from 

potential sabotage and unauthorized 

access prior to an LNG ship arrival. This 

security zone is outside the channel and 

outside recreational vessel grounds. It 

encompasses waters inside the LNG 

terminal piers. Therefore, it should have 

a minimal impact on recreational and 

commercial vessels. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This security zone will only restrict 

access to a limited area, immediately 

surrounding an LNG facility, where 

vessels should not be operating due to 

the danger associated with the facility. 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 909 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have significant 

economic impact on it, please submit a 

comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining 

why you think it qualifies and how and 

to what degree this rule would 

economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposal so that they 

could better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking. If the 

rule would affect your small business 

and you have questions concerning its 

provisions or options for compliance, 

please contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Small businesses may also send 

comments on the actions of Federal 

employees who enforce, or otherwise 

determine compliance with, Federal 

regulations to the Small Business and 

Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement 

Ombudsman and the Regional Small 

Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. 

The Ombudsman evaluates these 

actions annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

This interim rule would not result in 

such an expenditure. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule would not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. Therefore, it 

does not require a Statement of Energy 

Effects under Executive Order 13211. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. A final 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Checklist’’

and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. A Section 165.751 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 165.751 Security Zone: LNG mooring 

Slip, Savannah River, Savannah, Georgia. 

(a) Security Zone. The following area 

is a security zone: All the waters from 

surface to bottom of the northeastern 

most mooring dolphin located at 

approximately 32[deg]05.01’ North, 

080[deg]59.38’ West, to the southeastern 

most mooring dolphin located at 

approximately 32[deg]04.49’ North, 

080[deg]59.20’ West, and continues 

west along the North and South 

shoreline of the mooring slip to the 

shoreline of the right descending bank 

of the Savannah River. All marine traffic 

is prohibited from entering this zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port (COTP). 

(b) Applicability. This section applies 

to all vessels including naval and other 

public vessels, except vessels that are 

engaged in the following operations: (1) 

Law enforcement, security, or search 

and rescue; (2) servicing aids to 

navigation; (3) surveying, maintenance, 

or improvement of waters in the 

security zone; or (4) actively engaged in 

escort, maneuvering, or support duties 

for an LNG tankship. 

(c) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.33 of 

this part, entry into or movement within 

this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Savannah or vessels engaged in 

activities defined in paragraph (b). 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES

910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) Reporting of Violations. Violations 

of this section should be reported to the 

Captain of the Port, Savannah, at (912) 

652–4353. In accordance with the 

general regulations in § 165.13 of this 

part, no person may cause or authorize 

the operation of a vessel in the security 

zone contrary to the provisions of this 

section. 

Dated: October 27, 2006. 

D.W. Murk, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port. 

[FR Doc. 07–38 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 601 

[Docket FTA–2006–22428] 

RIN 2132–AA89 

Emergency Procedures for Public 

Transportation Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking establishes a 

new subpart in 601 of Title 49 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, to establish 

emergency relief procedures for granting 

relief from Federal transit policy 

statements, circulars, guidance 

documents, and regulations in times of 

national or regional emergencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this rule is February 8, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bonnie L. Graves, Attorney-Advisor, 

Legislation and Regulations Division, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 

20590, phone: (202) 366–4011, fax: (202) 

366–3809, or e-mail, 

Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of the Final Rule 

You may download this rule from the 

Department’s Docket Management 

System (http://dms.dot.gov) by entering 

docket number 22428 in the search field 

or from the Government Printing 

Office’s Federal Register Main Page at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. Users may also download 

an electronic copy of this document 

using a modem and suitable 

communications software from the GPO 

Electronic Bulletin Board Service at 

(202) 512–1661. 

I. Background 

On August 8, 2006, the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to establish an ‘‘Emergency 

Relief Docket’’ for granting relief from 

Federal transit policy statements, 

circulars, and guidance documents, in 

times of national or regional emergency 

(71 FR 44957). The NPRM was in 

response to the aftermath of Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, during which FTA 

received numerous requests for relief 

from policy statements, circulars, 

guidance documents, and regulations, 

from grantees and subgrantees in the 

immediate disaster zone as well as from 

grantees and subgrantees in areas 

receiving evacuees. 

The NPRM comment period remained 

open until October 10, 2006. FTA 

received 14 comments to the docket. 

FTA reviewed and considered all 

comments submitted. Commenters 

included the City of Lincoln, NE; the 

Metro Regional Transit Authority of 

Akron, OH; the Portage Area Regional 

Transportation Authority (OH); 

Congressman Tim Ryan (OH); 

Earthquake Solutions (CA); the Akron 

Metropolitan Area Transportation Study 

(OH); Omnitrans (CA); the Licking 

County Transit Board (OH); the 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority (DC); Laketran (OH); the 

Alaska Department of Transportation; 

the American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA); the California 

Department of Transportation; and one 

individual. In addition, Senator DeWine 

(OH) wrote to FTA’s Administrator, 

James S. Simpson, to bring to his 

attention the comments made by the 

Akron Metro Regional Transit 

Authority. FTA posted Senator 

DeWine’s letter and Administrator 

Simpson’s response in the docket. 

II. Discussion of Comments 

Two commenters urged FTA not to 

employ emergency relief dockets. The 

commenters stated that relief from 

administrative requirements can be 

granted with or without a formal request 

and with or without public 

consultation. Several commenters stated 

a concern that requiring grantees and 

subgrantees to request relief through 

emergency relief dockets would slow 

response to emergencies. Others stated 

they should be permitted to use their 

federally-funded equipment in times of 

emergency and notify FTA of the issue 

as soon as possible but not later than 30 

days after the event. 

In response, we agree with 

commenters that grantees and 

subgrantees should have maximum 

flexibility to assist local responders 

during an emergency. We want to 

emphasize that an Emergency Relief 

Docket will most likely be utilized in 

the aftermath of an emergency that has 

regional or national implications. There 

is no question that a toxic chemical 

spill, a levee break, or other imminent 

life-threatening situation requiring 

immediate evacuation of a local area 

requires fast action by first responders, 

including local transit agencies. In cases 

such as these, the grantee or subgrantee 

would not request relief through the 

emergency relief docket; it would 

simply work with local authorities to 

evacuate people as quickly as possible, 

consistent with local emergency plans. 

However, if a toxic chemical spill or a 

major flood or other event required 

ongoing relief efforts over several days 

or weeks, or the emergency impacted a 

large geographical area, one or more 

grantees and subgrantees might need to 

request relief from policies, circulars, 

guidance or regulations, and in such 

cases the Emergency Relief Docket 

would be used. 

Three commenters asked how they 

would notify FTA of the need for relief 

if there was no electricity or phone 

service. The NPRM contemplated the 

inability to access the electronic docket 

by providing that grantees and 

subgrantees could contact any FTA 

regional office, and ask the regional 

office to submit their request for relief 

to the docket. While acknowledging that 

in extreme situations it may be several 

days before a grantee or subgrantee 

could contact FTA to request relief from 

administrative requirements, we believe 

the option of contacting any regional 

office or FTA headquarters by telephone 

or mail, is sufficient if the electricity is 

not working. And again, FTA notes the 

purpose of the Emergency Relief Docket 

is to provide relief in the aftermath of 

regional or national emergencies, not 

during imminent life-threatening 

situations. 

In the NPRM, FTA proposed that the 

emergency relief procedures would be 

triggered by a Presidential declaration of 

national or regional emergency. We 

sought comment on whether the 

proposed emergency procedures should 

also be triggered by a State Governor’s 

declaration of emergency. Eight 

commenters supported the trigger of 

relief procedures for emergency 

declarations made by Governors, and 

one commenter expressed that a 

Mayoral declaration of emergency in the 

District of Columbia should trigger the 

relief procedures, as the Mayor is the 

highest ranking public official in the 

jurisdiction. Two commenters stated 

that an appropriate trigger for relief 

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with RULES